Rick Sumner

I suppose that depends on what writing you're reading (Even more so with Augustus, about whom writings contain a wealth of goodies that couldn't possibly, much less easily, be historical). Suetonius and Ovid, for example, are decidedly different animals.

I take it you haven't read Ovid's Metamorphoses? Or is it intrinsically probably that Julius managed because of Venus' intervention? And Augustus? Don't even get me started on Augustus. . .

Huh? No it doesn't. By your logic, we would need to compare Augustus to other Gods, because he was deified while he lived. Not only did he claim to be divine, so did everyone else. Your reasoning isn't just flawed, it's arbitrary.

You seem to be missing the point here. I'm not saying that the comparison of Jesus to Caesar is good, I'm saying it's terrible. My point is that your comparison of Jesus to Zeus isn't any better. Which is a point you don't address in the entirety of your post.

I'm not addressing potential comparisons of Jesus to Hercules or Perseus, I'm addressing your comparison of Jesus to Zeus.

I reiterate: Your analogy of Jesus to Zeus is bad. If you'd like to rebut that, you need to defend your analogy, not attack another analogy that I also said is bad.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

It's precisely because we apply those methodologies that we discover that it contains so little historical material that it provokes suspicion.

Vorkosigan

Jehanne

I just watched The God Who Wasn't There. In short, compelling. The big problem that I see with New Testament scholarship is that it often occurs in a vacuum, especially, Christian apologetics. In my opinion, if Jesus truly was a historical person, then there should be some archaeological evidence to support his existence. For instance, if there really was an "empty tomb," why has its location been "lost" over time? Certainly, if the early Christians believed in an earthly Jesus, then they would have almost certainly preserved some artifacts from his earthly life. If, on the other hand, the idea of an earthly Jesus developed over time, well, then...

GakuseiDon

It addresses your earlier comment: The point is that you can argue that Jesus was resurrected and be accepted as an NT scholar, but you can't argue that Jesus was a myth and be accepted as an NT scholar.

If an NT scholar like Crossan started to advocate for a mythical Jesus, would he still be accepted as an NT scholar? I would say "yes", simply because of the body of work that exists behind him.

There are two separate issues here that I think you conflate whenever there are arguments on historicity. One is: Is there evidence to conclude that there probably was a historical Jesus? The other is: what methodology can be used to derive historical events from the NT?

I think you have a good point on the question of getting history from the NT, but let's look at the first one.

In the link I gave earlier, Peter Kirby writes "But assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact."

Is that a reasonable statement in your opinion?

Vorkosigan

Hell yes. Very reasonable. The issue is, does such good reason for disputing the fact exist? Answer: Yes! Peter's formulation is actually very precise, for he notes that it is prima facie evidence and is open to the possibility of reasonable doubt.

No, Don, you and many others have missed the boat on this one. You can't talk about evidence without talking about methodology. I pointed that out to jj a while back. You people keep showing me DATA and saying that it is EVIDENCE. Data and evidence are two completely different things, and they show up in two different places in the research process.

Data is what you abstract out of the world with some valid and reliable methodology. In NT studies data is the Greek text of the NT, constructed by the valid and reliable methodologies of NT text criticism. Evidence is what happens when you take the Greek and spin it through a reliable methodology. You then get results. These results become evidence when organized under a model, which in turn they feed back to, and which helps understand them. The results, organized by a model, then become evidence when part of an argument, a set of conclusions based on the research. Evidence is data that has been processed. When you talk about evidence, you are assuming a data collection method and a model and a methodology. It is that set of assumptions I wish to expose.

Hence the reason I conflate the questions you point out there is because they are tightly related. If you ask Is there evidence to conclude that there probably was a historical Jesus? you beg the question of what data set you derived your evidence from, and what methodology you spun the data through to get evidence. The two cannot be separated because one is a subset of the other. You are essentially asking me to separate the question Is the urban planning in New York City any good? from the question How is good urban planning to be judged?

I very much agree with this about Crossan or someone of similar stature. I'd be curious as hell to see what would happen if a major scholar came out as a mythicist -- I expect it to happen sooner or later. But an newly established scholar, never.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

No, Vork, that isn't the issue I'm pointing out at this stage. At this point I am noting that there may be prima facie evidence to conclude that there was a historical Jesus "simply by the standard practice of conducting history".

Now, on to the evidence itself: Is it possible for someone to conclude that the second reference in Josephus to Christ is authentic without accepting it as an article of faith, IYO? Peter Kirby lays out the reasons why he believes it to be authentic here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Again, whether you agree or disagree with Kirby's conclusion isn't important. Do you think a person who finds the second reference to be authentic can do so on grounds that don't involve faith-positions?

OK. So perhaps your earlier comment should be worded as: You can argue that Jesus was resurrected and be accepted as an NT scholar, but a newly established scholar can't argue that Jesus was a myth and be accepted as an NT scholar.

But what constitutes an NT scholar? I would say qualifications (usually but not necessarily), and publication in a peer-reviewed journal in that field. What is currently stopping newly established scholars from publishing papers on Jesus being a myth (even a review of Doherty's book would be a good topic), and thus establishing themselves as NT scholars?

Charles Wilson

I unpack the early stories in early Mark first - Markan priority is helpful but not necessary. I prefer not to get bogged down in this argument.
Evidence comes from Josephus although it comes with an asterisk. Josephus used Nicholas of Damascus exclusively in summarizing the Archelaus history and Nicholas, who argued with some frequency in front of the emperor, is the behind the scenes Roman Political Control Officer. He wrote the material and it is elliptical at best but still usable.
I assert that the Jesus stories were appropriated very early on, first by possible Herodian elements and then by some who saw the stories as the story of a "real" person. The stories were *NEVER* intended to be bent into what they became.
Paul is a construct and not necessary to the discussion. I originally thought that Paul might be real (See Maccoby here, an absolutely indispensable resource.), but have been convinced that Paul is late 2nd century fabrication.

In short, my work starts out as an almost Kantian exercise. "After you have stripped away the metaphysics and additions from a later religion, is there anything left?" I answer in the affirmative, with lots of exclamation points.

I am looking for help, history and development. I do not come here with a kook outlook or a sophomoric desire to insert fringe ideas into someone's honest beliefs.
This is something that I see, I am honestly trying to follow where it goes. My training is in Philosophy, empiricism to Process (Whitehead), I am aware of methodologies and I am looking for people who will at least read what I write before dismissing it.

You suggest starting a thread? No prob.
Let's get started.

Charles

mens_sana

There is a very interesting book on the historical elements in Judges by Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (or via: amazon.co.uk). It might well modify your assessment a bit — and you've omitted the long accepted view of the historical elements in the Song of Deborah.

On history in Daniel — read superficially there is very little. Read with the help of the New Oxford Annotated Bible, there is an accurate description of the campaigns of Antiochus III in 11:14-20, along with a nice description of Antiochus IV's activities in Jerusalem and his failed Egyptian campaign in 11:21-39. Many readers fail to recognize these passages as such because I Maccabees and the "intertestamental" period are not standard reading for either current or ex-conservatives.

mens_sana

And for this, we can thank the church which collected what were originally individual, separate books, placing them under one cover with the claim that they were all interconnected. It is hard to get away from this even now. Read individually, Matthew, Mark and Luke do not actually say that Jesus is God. Read with John so that they are interfused, they do. Tchaaa.

Chris Weimer

What exactly led you to believe this?

Please explain this part further in detail.

No one here is dismissing your work (although some might). If you're honest about it, than you will accept a good critique fully evaluating it and pointing out its weak spots.

Absolutely. Start a new thread on the topic. If you don't want to do a full explanation, you can do it on one point, but I would heartily recommend bringing it out in full force.

best regards,

Chris Weimer